Thanks for a good episode, Brian and Jacob. I appreciate the skepticism regarding Russian interference in 2016. However, I am continually let down by skeptics’ failure to address the best evidence for Russia’s involvement.
For example, my understanding is that security experts uncovered data from Bitly connecting the creation of many different fishing links, which is convincing evidence an external player worked to hack the DNC over many months, and that they were likely Russian. Perhaps this evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. But when skeptics fail to even mention it and say instead “there’s no evidence Russia hacked the DNC”, I immediately become skeptical of the skeptics.
There is other evidence too and I wish technically competent people who aren’t obviously biased towards the democrat’s narrative would evaluate it so I could make better judgments regarding Russia’s involvement in 2016.
Thanks for a good episode, Brian and Jacob. I appreciate the skepticism regarding Russian interference in 2016. However, I am continually let down by skeptics’ failure to address the best evidence for Russia’s involvement.
For example, my understanding is that security experts uncovered data from Bitly connecting the creation of many different fishing links, which is convincing evidence an external player worked to hack the DNC over many months, and that they were likely Russian. Perhaps this evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. But when skeptics fail to even mention it and say instead “there’s no evidence Russia hacked the DNC”, I immediately become skeptical of the skeptics.
There is other evidence too and I wish technically competent people who aren’t obviously biased towards the democrat’s narrative would evaluate it so I could make better judgments regarding Russia’s involvement in 2016.